Posted
by
CowboyNeal
on Thursday September 29, 2005 @05:13PM
from the shot-in-the-arm dept.

Brandon writes "BitTorrent just got a massive infusion of cash from venture capital firm DCM Doll. It looks like BitTorrent is hoping to cozy up with the content creators. From the article, 'Neither BitTorrent nor DCM have publicly stated
how a legitimate service would work, but industry insiders have been busy speculating on how the distributed peer-to-peer service could help movie studios and filmmakers make
for-pay content available.' Will this awaken Microsoft's Avalanche?"

The "last refreshed" time is basically already there: look at the time of the story at the top of the page. If it's more than a couple hours ago then likely it... was last refreshed a couple hours ago.

(Or perhaps you meant within the story; you're right, that would be a feature request.)

Judging from the editor's comment at the end of the previous dupe acknowledging its dupeness, these dupes are in fact deliberate. But maybe not for the reason stated.

Think about the slashdot effect for a moment. You've seen what happens when a site that can't handle traffic gets slashdotted. Now think what happens on a site which has ad-supported stories that can handle the traffic. Especially if it is a deep-pocketed advertiser.

Then consider how a site that didn't get the slashdot-effect ad impressions for a particular story because slashdot linked to another else first. Give them a dupe and maybe a commitment for a few more linked stories to make them happy and keep the kickbacks coming.

Why not "employ" the people who subscribe to slashdot to vote on whether an article is a dupe? If an overwhelming percentage of subscribers vote that it is, delete the post and don't run it for the general public.

I have a 4-month old daughter at home, so my wife and I don't really get to go out to the movies any more - so I download new releases and we watch them at home, and we can still keep up with our childless friends who go to the movies:)

I do this without any guilt, because if the MPAA etc would get off their arses and build a decent delivery system where I could pay (a reasonable fee - not the full cost of a cinema ticket!!) to download the latest movies then I would.

I do this without any guilt, because if the MPAA etc would get off their arses and build a decent delivery system where I could pay (a reasonable fee - not the full cost of a cinema ticket!!) to download the latest movies then I would.

Actually, the full cost of a cinema ticket ($8ish dollars where I live) would not be a bad price for a high-quality non-DRM'd movie. Consider that if you went to the theater, you'd have to pay for two tickets, unless the wife is young enough to get in for free.;) You'd also p

Yeah, but people said the same thing about iTunes on Slashdot, and now those same people are still pirating music. Want to hear the secret? It's because of the "reasonable fee" clause! See, to the average Slashdotter, the "reasonable fee" of a music track is somewhere in the vicinity of 10 cents, and the "reasonable fee" of a movie is around maybe half a dollar. So no matter how good the service that comes out is, Slashdotters can continue pirating with inpunity because the product isn't offered at a "r

Yeah man. If BMW would just get off their ass and build an awesome car for $15,000 I wouldn't have to steal the really expensive ones.So lets get this straight - you do not feel guilty about breaking the law, because it is THEIR fault that you have to break the law because they didn't make something convenient for you in the way YOU see fit.

Nice logic.

I download movies because I have no respect for the movie industry and am a selfish bastard and just don't care for them to get my money. At least thats being

Yeah man. If BMW would just get off their ass and build an awesome car for $15,000 I wouldn't have to steal the really expensive ones.

Nope, you missed it completely. If BMW would make the M6 available in the US, he wouldn't have to violate customs laws to import one illegally. It isn't about the price, it is about the complete lack of availability. Though I do agree that his demand for the price to be under $8 is arbitrary, I can get any number of DVDs from Wal-Mart or other discount store for $5.50 or

I do this without any guilt, because if the MPAA etc would get off their arses and build a decent delivery system where I could pay (a reasonable fee - not the full cost of a cinema ticket!!) to download the latest movies then I would.

Have you considered that it's their content and that they should get to decide how they want to distribute it? What you would do in some alternate universe simply doesn't enter the picture, at least not as the moral aspect is concerned.

Ok, I worded that badly - I don't mean to be taking some moral high ground here - I don't have much of a problem downloading movies, but if there was a legitimate alternative, I'd take it.

I beleive they should be (financially) rewarded for their efforts. But having to compete with a free service should hopefully make them eventually provide an alterative that isn't too pricey or restrictive.

If that free alternative wasn't there, or people didn't use it, then the movie industry would have no incentive to start making these deals.

I don't have much of a problem downloading movies, but if there was a legitimate alternative, I'd take it. But having to compete with a free service should hopefully make them eventually provide an alterative that isn't too pricey or restrictive.

Netflix [netflix.com] is such an alternative. They have many memberships from which to choose, as cheap as $10/month for "unlimited" DVD rentals. You don't even have to leave your house to fetch or return your DVDs. If you don't consider that to be a legitimate, price-competive a

I subscribe to a service here in NZ which works exactly the same way, and its great.

But for the big new release movies, such as Revenge of the Sith, Mr and Mrs Smith, and War of the Worlds, I want to see them the same as my friends and workmates do, not 3-6 months later. So I download them.

I want to see the big new release movies, when they are still new releases, and yet its not practical to go to the cinema. So I download them.

Netflix is not an on-demand service, but my Netflix movie queue has 500 movies I *know* I want to see. I get 3 DVDs at a time, so while I'm waiting period for the next DVD arrive, I still have 2 other DVDs to watch.

So, the great downloads of the software demos, the linux distros and so on haven't been legitimate?Again, I'm left feeling rather let down by statements that seem to indicate that unless somethings signed off and tide up by the content cartels, it's somehow illegitimate.

THE VC?!?!?!
(Score:1)
by rel4x (783238) Alter Relationship on Thursday September 29, @05:27PM (#13680404)
WHY bring the Viet Cong into this? WHAT GOOD WILL COME OF IT?!...oh yeah...dupe...and yet...I don't mind...there's no news like good news...twice....

Let's see: so we'll be paying the content suppliers for the right to download content from our neighbours. This content will presumably be DRM'd, so we won't typically be able to do anything with it except play it a specified way on a specified platform.
The content providers will not be paying us for the bandwidth used in passing that content on to our neighbours, nor for the disk space used in storing it. How much does disk space cost these days?
Maybe they should pay us?
No, I didn't read the article...

Microsoft have done it again! It seem every 4 or so weeks i hear about another un-imaginative ripoff from microsoft making out that its all new and all theirs!! And recently they havn't even been re-hashing the names properly!!! i cite as my examples:

Macromedia Flash - Microsoft Sparkle
BitTorrent - Avalanche

Give it a few months we'll be seen Microsoft BackupExec...utive! Microsoft Delphoid! The mIcroPod Nanop!

Sadly, it appears that it's just plagarism and karma whoring. It would be great social commentary if there were a least some form of attribution. I should be noted that he did the same thing in response to the last duped story [slashdot.org].